pc2 [9]
the last place where this transformation triumphs in its purest and most logical forms, is the countryside, some of its earliest developments occur there. Hence the ancients, who never advanced beyond specifically urban craft kill and application, were never able to achieve large-scale industry. For its first prerequisite is the involvement of the entire countryside in the production, not of use-values, but of exchange values. Glassworks, papermills, ironworks, etc., cannot be conducted on gild principles. They require mass-production, sales to a general market, _monetary wealth_ on the part of the entrepreneur. Not that he creates the subjective or objective conditions; but under the old relations of property and production these conditions cannot be brought together. (After this, the dissolution of the relations of serfdom and the rise of manufacture gradually transform all branches of production into branches operated by capital.) However, the towns themselves contain an element for the formation of genuine wage-labor -- namely, day-laborers outside the gild system, unskilled laborers, etc. We thus see that the transformation of money into capital presupposes a historic process which separates the objective conditions of labor, and makes them independent of and sets them against the laborers. However, once capital and its process have come into being, they conquer all production and everywhere bring about and accentuate the separation between labor and property, labor and the objective conditions of labor. Subsequent development will show in what ways capital destroys artisan labor, small working landownership, etc., and also itself in those forms in which it does _not_ appear in contradiction to labor: _petty capital_, and intermediate or hybrid types between the classic, adequate mode of production of capital itself, and the old modes of production (in their original form), or as renewed on the basis of capital. The only accumulation which is a prerequisite for the rise of capital, is that of _monetary wealth_, which, when considered in isolation, is entirely unproductive, emerges only from circulation and belongs only to circulation. Capital rapidly creates itself an internal market by destroying all rural subsidiary crafts -- i.e., by spinning and weaving for all, providing clothing for all, etc.; in short, by turning the commodities formerly produced as immediate use-values into exchange-values. This process is the automatic result of the separation of the laborers from the soil and from their property (though even only serf property) in the conditions of production. Though urban crafts are based substantially on exchange and the creation of exchange-values, the main object of production is not _enrichment_ or _exchange-value as exchange-values_, but the _subsistence of man as an artisan, as a master-craftsman_, and consequently use-value. Production is therefore everywhere subordinate to a presupposed consumption, supply to demand, and its expansion is slow. _The production of capitalists and wage-laborers is therefore a major product of the process by which capital turns itself into values_. Ordinary political economy, which concentrates only on the objects produced, forgets this entirely. Inasmuch as this process establishes reified labor as what is simultaneously the _non-reification_ of the laborer, as the reification of a subjectivity opposed to the laborer, as the _property_ of someone else's will, capital is necessarily also a _capitalist_. The idea of some socialists, that we need capital but not capitalists, is completely false. The concept of capital implies that the objective conditions of labor -- and these are its own product -- acquire a _personality_ as against labor, or what amounts to the same thing, that they are established as the property of a personality other than the worker's. The concept of capital implies the capitalist. However, this error is certainly no greater than that of, e.g., all philologists